"we’ve reached a point where the Enlightenment, which made it perfectly acceptable to question religious dogma, has produced it’s own gospel."
The way I put it to my students is that we've theologicalized our politics.
I vote for this shorter format, at least for those times that you have 2-3 separate topics (like Rod often does). On the other hand, if the topics are tied tightly together, the longer format still makes sense.
The long essays are great for when you explain a cultural trend, like this essay on leftist dogma, because it's a complex topic. So I would have preferred this article to be longer as you explored your reasoning in greater detail.
However, when it comes to reporting on current events, like the more recent article about the UK government reacting to a Netflix show as it is reality not fiction, that doesn't need a long explanation and is better in short format.
Hope my advise helps! and keep up the great writing.
That's indeed great advice. Honestly, my instinct is the reverse of yours. I felt like it's not too difficult to refute Buttigieg's argument, which is a big reason I kept this one brief.
Also, I'm not a cultural writer. I'm a current events, conflict, prepper writer first and foremost, so I like analyzing things like Britain heading towards civil war. I feel like that's where I truly bring the most value.
Still, I appreciate your contrarian take. It'll be something I keep in mind.
Buttigieg is a smarmy tool bag, but his "aw shucks" small town mayor vibe he puts on is appealing to a lot of people, especially the AWFLs. He's more dangerous than people think.
The short essay is good and easier to share with others, but I enjoy the longer ones too.
Don't worry about being too long. Ever since Rod Dreher put me on to your substack, I've loved your work. Yours and his are the only two that I always read ASAP and completely.
I appreciate the feedback. The thing is that the long essays also get exhausting for me to write, much as I have to say. I don't think having a variety of lengths is a bad idea.
The "equity/inequity" distinction is a category error as Pete B. uses the terms. The left uses equity to imply equality of outcomes. But the word "equity" is synonymous with Justice. Therefore their parlance is loaded toward preferring equality of outcomes since they use a term synonymous with Justice to describe it. Hence, any inequalities are "inequitable," or unjust in their parlance. Most people profoundly disagree with this premise once it's explained to them, since generating equal outcomes must necessarily involve suspending equality under the law and treating people unequally, which most people view as being TRULY Unjust.
Of course equity is categorically better than inequity. But the word does not mean what Pete B. implies it to mean,, and unequal outcomes are normal and to be expected under the most desirable social and legal conditions, and are not inequitable.
WAY too short, especially on something this important. Education on presenting sound, valid arguments against liberal nonsense is extremely important at this hour. The battle in the next four years for the reestablishment of sanity and common sense started by the Trump administration, conservatives, Christians, patriots, free speech, religion & market advocates, has begun and will only get more intense. There will most likely come a time when words will not be enough. But until then, we who are on the right side of this historic battle must try and use wisdom and sound logic to pull minds out of the insanity they’ve been caged into.
Thanks Max, I wish more writers here were willing to try what you are trying. I subscribe to so many amazing writers who are commenting what is current. I don’t have time for them all. I inevitably end up deleting most of the emails and skimming the rest. This one would have passed the Goldilocks test, “Just Right.”
I'm one who will never catch up on all of the reading I want to do (much less all that I would like to do!), but I appreciate an essay that takes the space it needs to complete its thoughts, no more no less. This one did not seem too short, to me.
It's also a good takeaway to put in the public square, ideally more people can actively keep it in mind, and intentionally use and build these skills. Critical analysis requires -- not nice-to-have but essential -- advanced skills in dissecting and evaluating premises before and after looking at results or conclusions, whether an alleged 'scientific' study with tables and numbers or a piece of expository or persuasive rhetoric. A solid basic course in logic can be helpful, too.
Let's just put them to work. Ditch digging, maids in rich blue enclaves, picking melons, whatever else the self-proclaimed elites are worried America can't do once we deport all of the illegal aliens. A few years of hard labor might adjust a few attitudes.
"we’ve reached a point where the Enlightenment, which made it perfectly acceptable to question religious dogma, has produced it’s own gospel."
The way I put it to my students is that we've theologicalized our politics.
I vote for this shorter format, at least for those times that you have 2-3 separate topics (like Rod often does). On the other hand, if the topics are tied tightly together, the longer format still makes sense.
The long essays are great for when you explain a cultural trend, like this essay on leftist dogma, because it's a complex topic. So I would have preferred this article to be longer as you explored your reasoning in greater detail.
However, when it comes to reporting on current events, like the more recent article about the UK government reacting to a Netflix show as it is reality not fiction, that doesn't need a long explanation and is better in short format.
Hope my advise helps! and keep up the great writing.
That's indeed great advice. Honestly, my instinct is the reverse of yours. I felt like it's not too difficult to refute Buttigieg's argument, which is a big reason I kept this one brief.
Also, I'm not a cultural writer. I'm a current events, conflict, prepper writer first and foremost, so I like analyzing things like Britain heading towards civil war. I feel like that's where I truly bring the most value.
Still, I appreciate your contrarian take. It'll be something I keep in mind.
Buttigieg is a smarmy tool bag, but his "aw shucks" small town mayor vibe he puts on is appealing to a lot of people, especially the AWFLs. He's more dangerous than people think.
The short essay is good and easier to share with others, but I enjoy the longer ones too.
Don't worry about being too long. Ever since Rod Dreher put me on to your substack, I've loved your work. Yours and his are the only two that I always read ASAP and completely.
Keep up the good work!
I appreciate the feedback. The thing is that the long essays also get exhausting for me to write, much as I have to say. I don't think having a variety of lengths is a bad idea.
The "equity/inequity" distinction is a category error as Pete B. uses the terms. The left uses equity to imply equality of outcomes. But the word "equity" is synonymous with Justice. Therefore their parlance is loaded toward preferring equality of outcomes since they use a term synonymous with Justice to describe it. Hence, any inequalities are "inequitable," or unjust in their parlance. Most people profoundly disagree with this premise once it's explained to them, since generating equal outcomes must necessarily involve suspending equality under the law and treating people unequally, which most people view as being TRULY Unjust.
Of course equity is categorically better than inequity. But the word does not mean what Pete B. implies it to mean,, and unequal outcomes are normal and to be expected under the most desirable social and legal conditions, and are not inequitable.
WAY too short, especially on something this important. Education on presenting sound, valid arguments against liberal nonsense is extremely important at this hour. The battle in the next four years for the reestablishment of sanity and common sense started by the Trump administration, conservatives, Christians, patriots, free speech, religion & market advocates, has begun and will only get more intense. There will most likely come a time when words will not be enough. But until then, we who are on the right side of this historic battle must try and use wisdom and sound logic to pull minds out of the insanity they’ve been caged into.
Thanks Max, I wish more writers here were willing to try what you are trying. I subscribe to so many amazing writers who are commenting what is current. I don’t have time for them all. I inevitably end up deleting most of the emails and skimming the rest. This one would have passed the Goldilocks test, “Just Right.”
Well so far, it seems the gamble is paying off!
I'm one who will never catch up on all of the reading I want to do (much less all that I would like to do!), but I appreciate an essay that takes the space it needs to complete its thoughts, no more no less. This one did not seem too short, to me.
It's also a good takeaway to put in the public square, ideally more people can actively keep it in mind, and intentionally use and build these skills. Critical analysis requires -- not nice-to-have but essential -- advanced skills in dissecting and evaluating premises before and after looking at results or conclusions, whether an alleged 'scientific' study with tables and numbers or a piece of expository or persuasive rhetoric. A solid basic course in logic can be helpful, too.
"The Left has been in power for so long, nobody even thinks to challenge them on these assumptions."
That is a fantastic essay!
By the time I hit Buttigieg's video, I was already screaming internally, but then you covered all the points very succinctly.
This one will get passed around for study.
We're really going to have to liquidate people who have worked at consulting firms, aren't we?
Let's just put them to work. Ditch digging, maids in rich blue enclaves, picking melons, whatever else the self-proclaimed elites are worried America can't do once we deport all of the illegal aliens. A few years of hard labor might adjust a few attitudes.